Well written Maestro Hayes.

Being totally indoctrinated in=20
the Classical French style I=20
had only a limited and external
knowledge of the Italian style.

In my salle I teach the Classical=20
French style with the Foil being=20
the Academic, theorizing weapon, which=20
teaches how one "should" fence and the
Epee as the dueling weapon which teaches=20
or more correctly, allows one to experience=20
more of the realities of the duel=20
(more than French foil) by allowing mistakes=20
(double touches) to be counted against both=20
fencers.

Blessings,
Rez Johnson

"Standing guard on old, forgotten roads, that no one travels anymore."
THE FENCING MASTER
by Arturo Perez

Rez Johnson, M d'A
Headmaster: Mississippi Academy of Arms (Mississippi Fencing Academy)
President: United States Traditional Fencing Association
Certified Fencing Instructor: (USTFA, TFI, AAI, USFCA)
Certified Fencing Master Apprentice: (USTFA, USFCA)
Teaching Classical Fencing and Historical Swordsmanship since 1980
Modern Sport Fencing Coach 1980 - 2002

Mississippi Academy of Arms=20
P.O. Box 955
Pelahatchie, MS 39145-0955

E-Mail: 1@MSFencing.org=20
Academy Website: http://MSFencing.org
USTFA Website: http://traditionalfencing.org

"Eala Earendel engla beorhtast
ofer middangeard monnum sended."
Crist of Cynewulf=20=09


-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Hayes [mailto:hayes@efn.org]=20
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 11:15 PM
To: classicalfencing@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CFML] I don't understand this, either..

on 9/2/04 8:10 PM, 1@msfencing.org at 1@msfencing.org wrote:

> I think that's obvious (or should be) to everyone on this list,=20
> including those of us discussing it. By the way, I mean no disrespect=20
> to you personally Maestro when I say this.

I know you mean no disrespect - I've never found disrespect in your on-line
"voice" - and I pay careful attention to the sensible, carefully-considered
posts you have made over the years, even if I happen to disagree (pretty
seldom). But I do think that many participating in this discussion haven't
considered the difference between a *sporting* contest (classical style or
modern electric style) and a duel. Chris Amberger sums it up excellently i=
n
his "Secret History of the Sword", in a chapter where he analyzes "combat"
along the spectrum of lethal intent to pure sport. It's recommended readin=
g
for all.

>>> Luigi Barbasetti recognized this when he said: "The Italian method=20
>>> does not recognize the difference between fencing and fighting with the
sword=A9.

> Is he referring to the dueling sword (epee) only, or to the foil as well?

Salle fencing, or basic training, was done with the foil. Dueling and
preparation for same was done with the dueling sword. In the late 19th
century, an Italian dueling sword and an Italian foil had the same general
configuration in the guard - only the blade differed. It was later (circa
1900) that the Greco brothers (influenced by the French) developed an
Italian weapon with a fat, offset bell. So Barbasetti is referring to a
sala paradigm where the foil *is* the training tool for the real deal, and
not a thing considered in and of itself, as an academic exercise.

> In the Italian school, was the foil not considered an "academic"=20
> weapon or a "theorizing" weapon in which the conventions of ROW=20
> allowed "new realms of possibilities to be explored"?

Well, no. Not really, bearing in mind that neither the Italian schools nor
the French schools of the 19th century were some sort of homogenous,
single-faceted entity. Everyone had an opinion (and they not infrequently
dueled over them). See my larger explanation below.

> Did it not have conventions such as ROW which made it's practice=20
> sufficiently different from the dueling sword to render it less=20
> effective in a duel than the dueling sword? Were double hits=20
> considered double defeats as would be the case in a real duel?

Below is a cut & paste from a thread on the WMA list last year, which I am
now recycling to yet another list for the third time. Some of you have
probably seen it recently. It's two of my posts, including someone's
responses. Hope it's useful. Peg me with any questions you might have,
although I won't be back in town for a week or so, and won't catch up for a
few days after that.

Also, the thread itself had lots of other good stuff in it: look for the
title "ROW" in the Western-Arts list archive.

Cheers,

Sean

Sean Hayes
Maestro d'armi
Northwest Academy of Arms
http://www.northwestacademyofarms.com/

"Popular is a tricky word. People in large numbers don't always have the
best taste." - Richard Thompson


----Begin quoted mail----

It's important to remember that the FIE rules of right-of-way were
originally drawn up in 1913 for the competitive fencing of that day. The
rules were designed to reflect the concepts that a *sensible* swordsman
should observe when fencing with sharps, concepts that fencing masters and
experienced swordsmen had been observing in their practice for centuries.
(Not all fencers were in agreement as to the rules, however: the French
Rules, largely drawn up by Camille Prevot, predominated, to the disgust of
the Italians.)=20=20

These concepts are intended to maximize your chances for survival in a
serious fight. The concepts behind right-of-way are what the fencer should
think about, and they are not dependent on the other fellow playing by the
same "rules".

In fact, if the other fellow is a suicidal nutcase who hurls himself forwar=
d
without regard for his own life, the concepts behind right of way - as
expressed in your application of good technique - will benefit you. In
other words, if he peppers you with aggressive and even foolhardy attacks,
defend yourself above all else - until you either get the riposte or see th=
e
opening for a counterattack that will result in one hit: yours. If he
constantly counterattacks (eg attacks into your attack), then you must
always attack in such a manner that you close out his blade while attemptin=
g
to bring your point home (or evade his blade with your body). If he does
have a tendency to counterattack, then attack him in such a manner as to
draw his counterattack so that you can oppose it with a specific technique
(for example, a parry-riposte in countertime). The possibilities are
legion, and they all depend on your cool assessment of the other swordsman'=
s
abilities and tendencies in relation to your own capabilities. The concept=
s
behind right of way give you a framework with which to analyze and then to
act, so that you can maximize your chances of hitting without being hit.
And of course, it's a fight, which means it's risky.

I urge everyone to simply set aside what they know about current sport
fencing practices when working with classical and historical fencing - it's
neither classical nor historical, and the contemporary sport interpretation=
s
of the rules are not reflective of the spirit and intent of the 1913 FIE
rules. If you enjoy sport fencing, simply reserve the contemporary
interpretations for the sport fencing strip. Contemporary sport fencing
interpretations of right-of-way are optimized for a contest with electric
scoring machines, a potential to score five or 15 hits to end the bout, and
a general disregard for the lethality of sharps. It's not relevant to the
martial practices of classical and historical fencing.

[In the thread, someone replied:]

> Here, I'm sorry, but I'm not always satisfied with the vibe I get from=20
> CF advocates.

Any group - sport fencers, classical fencers, historical fencers, Asian
martial arts - will have both more and less capable proponents. You can't
judge an entire class of individuals on the basis of a few individuals or a
couple of groups, or by the loudest guy or biggest website on the internet.
If I had done that in regards to WMA, I wouldn't be here today. I would've
dismissed the whole thing a long time ago as a bad job. That would have
been my mistake, and my loss.

And again:
> For one thing, it doesn't always follow the rationale you just expressed.
> What you pointed out is that the suicidal nut-job *can* happen, and=20
> taking ROW to its logical extreme is the best way to deal with it, and=20
> I agree--but even then if and only if you train for it.

Absolutely. That's my point: you can only deal with those things you train
for. Anything else is dumb luck, and I prefer not to rely on dumb luck.
I'll take it if it runs in my favor, but I won't rely on it.

And again:
> Far more often I seem to hear that "*no* sensible fencer would ever do=20
> it, therefore it's *impossible*, therefore I'm not even going to=20
> *concern* myself with it."

I'm really sorry that folks out there seem to be saying such things; I've
heard it in just about every WMA weapons form I've studied. It certainly
isn't a basis for martial training. What I've heard is that encouraging
actions that are not sensible (or are even suicidal) in a game where only
the counting of points is at stake makes for a game that has no real
connection to martial practice. The classical folks, to name one group,
seem to wish to reform the game into what it once was, instead of what it
has become. But that discussion isn't really relevant to a WMA list.

And again:
> Beyond that I also seem to get the feeling that, among CF advocates,=20
> often there is an over-emphasis on "proper" technique in an *aesthetic*
sense.
> Here, on the other hand, is where *sport* fencing has its own=20
> reality-lessons to teach, even and especially in its modern incarnation.

By the late 19th century, there was a movement (based in France but not
confined there) to regard foil fencing as primarily an artistic
accomplishment - the artistic expression of dueling technique, if you will.
The Italians generally speaking did not share the sentiment (neither did al=
l
the French). This view was followed generally in the English speaking world=
:

".rebated swords and foils have been in use for centuries, but they
always stood for swords, sword play was the object, and few things were
attempted with "blunts" that would not be of practical use with "sharps."
In our days, however, foil play alone is generally the object.it may well
be considered an undecided question, from a practical point of view, i.e.
sword, not foil in hand, which of the two systems [Italian or French] is th=
e
more perfect."

-Egerton Castle, Schools and Masters of Fence, 1885

Luigi Barbasetti noted that

"The Italian method does not recognize the difference between fencing
and fighting with the sword.. The difference, to be sure, between serious
and sporting encounters is sufficient to modify the swordplay considerably.
But for the fencer, trained in the Italian method and in Italian arms, this
difference is not as great as that in the French school."

In 1904 Masaniello Parise wrote:

"In France, Ranc, Emile Andr=E9 Cassagnac, and others sustain that ther=
e
are two kinds of fencing: academic and dueling. Their opinion is supported
by the great difference of the weapon, and in the salle fencing of academic
fencers compared with that of the so-called spadisti (duelists) who use
exclusively the dueling sword."

While both schools stress the necessary fundamentals for dueling, the
observations regarding encounters between French and Italian masters in the
late nineteenth century are revealing. The French fencing master Ars=E9ne
Vigeant observed:

".I must acknowledge the strong impression made upon me by the Italian
fencers.the merits of the Scuola Magistrale were clearly evident in the
performance of three brilliant fencers: Agesilao Greco, a young master with
a great future, gifted with marvelous power and originality in tactical
approach; Carlo Guasti, a classical Italian fencer, correct and elegant;
[and] Carlo Pessina, astonishing in his agility and quickness of eye..

And the French writer Victor Maurel observed:

"Above all, the purpose of fencing to the Italian fencers is combat; and
they seek to attain their goal with all the resources they have available;
their aim is to hit and not be hit. We instead, admire, above all else,
aesthetic bouts.with this [attitude] one can obtain only a conventional art
that is no longer combat, and that places one in a position of inferiority
when faced with men who fence seriously.. My own conviction is that our
present academic school.is a recent school; my own first master, Bertrand,
as far as I know.did not sacrifice everything to aesthetics; he possessed a
supreme comprehension of fencing time and counterattacks."

It is this later French school to which Maurel refers that forms the basis
of sport fencing - it's rules were the ones adopted by the FIE in 1913 and
remain largely unchanged to this day. There is very little classical
Italian fencing in the US today that is taught by teachers trained in the
specifics of the art, so very few people have seen it. I'm one of those
very few teachers, by the way.

And again:
> My definition of "sport," incidentally, is that an ugly win is still a
win.
> It doesn't matter whether Randy Moss looked like a ballet dancer when=20
> he came down with the ball in the end zone--or whether he looked like=20
> a misnathropic, mutated cross between a whale and an octopus. He SCORED.

I don't know who Randy Moss is, but I take your point. Here's my point: th=
e
purpose of training in a specific combat system is so that you can maximize
your chances of survival in a real fight. No one is going to hold up a
scorecard or dock you "form points" in a real fight. That's for training.
That's so that in your training you can get some idea of how well you are
adhering to the principles of the system you are studying, principles which
you believe are sensible and sound, since you are studying them as a combat
art. It's a progress report, and progress reports are useful.

I have always avoided "real" fights whenever possible - and no, I have neve=
r
dueled. I'm perfectly happy that dueling is over and done with. I have no
desire to be punctured and even less desire to puncture anyone else.

> In unarmed martial arts, that's one wonderful thing about sports in=20
> general, and no-holds-barred competitions in particular: they show=20
> "pretty" and "effective" are *not* necessarily synonymous.
>=20
Form (eg "pretty") serves the purpose of teaching basic, correct, sensible
body mechanics. That is the function of form. It's for training. Anyone
who puts form over function in the actual application of a combat art is
making a mistake.

> Often I think it's true that the habits that a sport fencer has picked=20
> up would serve him ill in a duel--but I also seem to hear a lot of
"classical"
> criticisms that sound like sour grapes when the winner is too fast or=20
> unconventional.
>=20
Sore losers are all over the place. Don't pay them much attention. They'l=
l
go away on their own.

However, you do have to consider the circumstances of the contest. If you
"flick" me (which might result in a scratch if your blade was sharp) and I
hit you dead center in the chest at the same time, who won? In a sport
contest, you might well be declared the winner. Does that make martial
sense to you? This is the type of complaint I most often hear, and this
situation doesn't make martial sense to me. My advice: don't bother to mix
classical and sport in a right-of-way game. It's a recipe for arguments an=
d
bad feelings. The sport guy wins on the sports strip and the classical guy
wins on the classical strip. Have a beer with the other guy instead, and
watch the ball game. Everyone can feel good about that.

> "Did you see that, Pierre? My God, he didn't have his pinkie in=20
> quinte and his rear toe in septime--in my time, my maestro would never=20
> have allowed that point to count as a score!"
>=20
That's pretty funny, but I've never actually heard anyone say that kind of
thing. Certainly none of my fencing masters were that picky. I'll resist
the urge to note that pinkies and toes aren't held in quinte and....oops. =
I
did it again.

> Unfortunately, unarmed martial arts can be fought to their=20
> more-or-less definitive conclusions--a knockout, or submission where=20
> the only other choice would be to sustain a debilitating injury. Ah,=20
> now if we just could develop a "Resurrection Machine" so that real=20
> fights with sharps could show what "classical" rationales are or aren't
effective...
>=20
Still wouldn't work. If I know I'm going to survive (or know I'll be
resurrected), I can do all sorts of silly things that I would never risk
with only one skin to burn.

> (In any case, I think just about everyone would be in for a few=20
> surprises!)
>=20
I expect that's true.

----End quoted mail----


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Mak=
e
a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSI...LSAA/VRUolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->=20

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier
blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=20
Yahoo! Groups Links



=20







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->=20
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20...LSAA/VRUolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->=20

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier b=
lunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=20
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
classicalfencing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
=20